Ex Parte Xia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12040705 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/040,705 02/29/2008
74365 7590 05/03/2016
Slater Matsil, LLP
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Qin Xia
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
HW 0848045US 9923
EXAMINER
HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIN XIA and BEHCET SARIKA YA
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. (Final Act. 1-2; App. Br. 1, 4.)1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec."), filed Feb. 29, 2008
(claiming benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/904,524 (filed Mar.
1, 2007)) and Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed Oct. 7, 2013. We also refer to the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Jan. 31, 2014, and Final Office Action
(Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed May 9, 2013.
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue concerns network components (apparatuses),
systems, and methods for optimizing routing of data in a mobile
communication network utilizing IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6). The
system utilizes a mobile access gateway (MAG) to transmit a proxy binding
update (PBU) message from a first device (access router associated with a
mobile node) to a second device (access router), the MAG attaches a proxy
care-of test (COT) initiation request to the PBU message to initiate a proxy
COT on behalf of the mobile node. The MAG initiates the proxy COT
without prompting from the mobile node. (Spec. 1:17-21, 3:5-7:4;
Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A network component, comprising:
a storage medium;
a processor coupled with the storage medium;
a first interface coupled with the processor, the first
interface being associated with a first access network device
associated with a mobile node; and
a second interface coupled with the processor and a second
access network device, wherein
the first interface is configured to receive a handover
context from the first access network device; and
the second interface is configured to:
transmit, by a mobile access gateway, a first proxy binding
update (PBU) message to the second access network device,
2
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
wherein the mobile access gateway attaches a proxy care-of test
initiation request to the PBU message in order to initiate a proxy
care-of test on behalf of the mobile node, the proxy care-of test
being initiated directly by the mobile access gateway without
prompting from the mobile node;
receive, by the mobile access gateway, a care-of keygen
token from the second access network device in response to the
first proxy binding update;
send, from the mobile access gateway, a second proxy
binding update message in response to the care-of keygen token
to the second access network device to initiate a complete proxy
binding update exchange; and
receive, by the mobile access gateway, a proxy binding
acknowledge (PBA) message from the second access network
device to establish a direct route between the network component
and the second access network device.
Re} ection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maenpaa (US 2005/0088994 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005), Lee
(US 2006/0098575 Al, pub. May 11, 2006), and Taniuchi (US
2008/0207206 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2008 (filed Jan. 11, 2008, claiming benefit
of US 60/891,349, filed Feb. 23, 2007)).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follow:
1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and
Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested "the mobile access
3
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
gateway attaches a proxy care-of test initiation request to the PBU message
in order to initiate a proxy care-of test on behalf of the mobile node, the
proxy care-of test being initiated directly by the mobile access gateway
without prompting from the mobile node" within the meaning of Appellants'
claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 10 and 19?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and
Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested a "cryptographically
generated address (CGA) parameters" (see claim 2) "wherein the CGA
parameters are generated based on the home address of the mobile node" as
recited in Appellants' claim 3 and the commensurate limitations of claim
12?2
3. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and
Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested "calculat[ing] a
binding authorization data option of the second PBU message based on the
temporary keygen token and the care-of keygen token" as recited in
Appellants' claim 4 and the commensurate limitations of claims 13?
4. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and
Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested "calculat[ing] a
binding authorization data option field of the second PBU message based on
the care-of keygen token" as recited in Appellants' claim 7 and the
commensurate limitations of claims 16?
2 Appellants provide nominal arguments with respect to dependent claim 3
(Br. 5) and dependent claim 12 (Br. 7), asserting that Lee does not disclose
CGA parameters (infra). (See Br. 5, 7.) Appellants, however, do not
mention dependent claim 2 or dependent claim 11 upon which claims 3 and
12 (respectively) depend. We address this matter in more detail, infra.
4
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
ANALYSIS
The 35 USC§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims
1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20
Appellants provide nominal separate arguments for independent
claims 10 (Br. 6-7) and 19 (Br. 8), but merely reiterate the arguments made
with respect to claim 1. Therefore, Appellants do not separately argue
independent claims 10 and 19, or dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15,
17, 18, and 20. (Br. 4-8.) Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of Appellants' arguments and grouping with respect to claims
1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We concur with and adopt the findings and conclusions reached by
the Examiner (Final Act. 4-6; Ans. 2-12, 17-22), and we provide the
following for emphasis.
Appellants contend that Taniuchi does not teach the disputed features
of representative claim 1, namely, "the mobile access gateway attach[ing] a
proxy care-of test initiation request to the PBU message ... to imtrnte a
proxy care-of test on behalf of the mobile node" and "the proxy care-of test
being initiated directly by the mobile access gateway without prompting
from the mobile node" (claim 1). (See Br. 4-5.) We find Appellants'
contentions unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Initially, Appellants misconstrue the Examiner's rejection and do not
actually address the Examiner's bases for rejecting claim 1. (Compare Br.
4-5, with Final Act. 4-6; see also Ans. 2-8.) The Examiner clarifies that
Maenpaa and Lee teach a network element attaching a proxy care-of test
initiation request to a proxy binding update (PBU) message to initiate a
proxy care-of test for a mobile node and that the proxy care-oftest is directly
initiated by the network element without prompting from the mobile node
5
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
(Ans. 7, 21; see Ans. 2-12, 17-22). The Examiner further explains that
Taniuchi describes a mobile access gateway (MAG) sending a PBU message
(Ans. 7-8, 21; see 2-12, 17-22). Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief
rebutting these clarified findings and responsive arguments made by the
Examiner in the Answer. Further, Appellants do not explain why combining
the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner
proffered by the Examiner would have been beyond the abilities of one of
ordinary skill in the art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S.398,418(2007D.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1;
independent claims 10 and 19; and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15,
17, 18, and 20, not separately argued with particularity (supra).
The 35 USC§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims
3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 as being obvious
over Maenpaa, Lee, and Taniuchi.
With respect to dependent claim 3 (and dependent claim 12),
Appellants contend that Lee, cited by the Examiner as teaching
cryptographically generated address (CGA) parameters (see Final Act. 7;
Ans. 15-16, 23) does not teach this (disputed) feature of claim 3 (or claim
12). (Br. 5, 7.) We agree with Appellants that Lee does not describe CGA
parameters. (Br. 5, 7 .) In fact, the Examiner does not appear to even
6
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
address this recited feature of claims 3 and 12. (See discussion of claim 2
(Final Act. 6).)
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Lee (in combination with Maenpaa and
Taniuchi) teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants' dependent claim 3
and 12. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 12.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 13, the Examiner cites Lee as
teaching calculating a binding authorization data option based on a
temporary keygen token and a care-of keygen token. (Final Act. 7; Ans. 13-
14, 23.) Appellants contend that Lee does not teach these features of claims
4 and 13. (See Br. 5-7.) We agree with Appellants that "the cited portions
of Lee do not mention either 'temporary home keygen tokens' or 'binding
authorization data options"' (Br. 6). (See Br. 5-7.) The cited portions of
Lee (i1i18, 51, 73; Figs. 14-15) mention a home keygen token field (i-f 73,
Fig. 14) and a care-of keygen token field (Fig. 15), but do not explicitly
describe temporary home keygen tokens or binding authorization data
options as recited in claims 4 and 12.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Lee (in combination with Maenpaa and
Taniuchi) teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants' dependent claim 4
and 13. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 13.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 16, Appellants reiterate the
contentions made with respect to claims 4 and 13. (Br. 6, 8.) As with
claims 4 and 13 (supra), we agree with Appellants that Lee does not
explicitly describe binding authorization data options. Consequently, we are
constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding
Lee (in combination with Maenpaa and Taniuchi) teaches the disputed
7
Appeal2014-005631
Application 12/040,705
limitations of Appellants' dependent claims 7 and 16, and we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3,
4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16
and affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and
17-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8